Also, there is the little problem of Tim as editor being management for the magazine? Which might have been a bone of contention in a real organizing campaign.
TL
Max Sawicky wrote:
> [mbs]
> I'm not exactly a Nader fan, but . . .
>
> > 1. Don't you think its just the least bit hypocritical of
> Nader to say he wants to focus on how US labor laws make it
> difficult to organize unions when he himself has used those
> laws and the system to stifle unions at his own shop (and
> not only at Multinational Monitor)?
> >
>
> [mbs] Of course. This particularly offends me, since I work
> for
> a non-profit. But it might be noted that such hypocrisy is
> pretty common, on a par w/sexual exploitation. if we
> wait for higher levels of perfection we might wait a long
> time.
>
> > 2. Isn't how a man like Nader treats employees relevant
> to a movement that is supposedly trying to create an
> alternative, more democratic society?
>
> Ditto. And not only to those within it, and for those
> potentially
> affected by it, but also for mere appearances sake. It's a
> political handicap; many among the general public would
> not have the same tolerance for ambiguity as true believers.
>
> >
> > 3. Do you think Nader would agree to the unionization by
> card check of Public Citizen and other Nader organizations
> if presented with a majority of pro-union cards today? And
> if he didn't, would you still vote for the guy?
> >
>
> [mbs] I don't think this is the right criterion. To me the
> right one is,
> does Nader's candidacy provide a usable tool for
> enlightening and
> mobilizing people. If a crop of fair-sized trade unions
> got behind
> RN's candidacy, to me that is the sort of evidence that
> something
> worthwhile could come out of it.
>
> > 4. Doesn't it concern you that throughout the last 20
> years, Nader has never said a word about US foreign policy -
> Central America, Asia, or the Middle East? I'm not talking
> here about corporate policy, I'm talking about such things
> as the US wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua or the bombing
> of Iraq.
> >
>
> [mbs] No. You can't do everything. What matters is
> what he says now.
>
> > 5. Given Nader's (and Public Citizen's) dismal history of
> coalition-building over the past 3 decades, what makes you
> think Nader is the man to unite progressive-left forces in
> this country?
> >
>
> [mbs] This is the biggest fly in the ointment. there is no
> such
> evidence. The reason RN is w/the Greens is that they are
> not a party. They will let him do any damn thing he wants.
> Right now the campaign is in the category of constructive
> media event. I don't see any way right now how any
> worthwhile
> organization can come out of it.
>
> > 6. If you disagree with the assumption in Question 5, what
> examples can you provide of progressive coalition building
> on the part of Nader or PC?
>
> [mbs] none, but that hasn't been his business to date.
> I don't know who deserves credit or blame for the trade
> labor-oriented anti-globalization movement (i.e., the one
> folks here think is "protectionist"), but it has been a
> reasonably stable operation for a coalition.
>
> > Evidence, please.
> > Tim Shorrock
>
> I would say the main issue is the significance of RN does
> not
> lie within him. Your animosity is understandable but not a
> good guide in and of itself. People with awful personal
> traits or lapses of political integrity can do useful
> things.
> The "can" is what is in question here.
>
> An individual of virtue would be preferred as the leader of
> a movement, assuming she could do as good a job. But
> we seldom have the luxury of choice in the matter.
>
> mbs